tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC March 8, 2013 4:00pm-5:00pm PST
>> mrs. senator, we will and have and will continue to exercise our authorities to the full extent of the law. the question of pulling the bank's license is a question for the regulators. >> so you have no opinion on that. you sit in treasury and you try to enforce these laws and i've read all of your testimony. you tell me how vigorously you want to enforce these laws, but you have no opinion on when it is that a bank should be shut down for money laundering? not even an opinion? >> of course we have views on -- >> that's what i asked you for. your views? >> then she pressed another government witness for an answer. >> so what you're saying to me is you're responsible for these bank. and, again, i heard your testimony. you talked about the importance of vigorous investmented here. but you're telling me you have no view when it's appropriate to consider to raise the question whether or not these banks should have to close? >> i'll tell you exactly when it's appropriate.
it's appropriate when there's a criminal conviction. >> so you have no view on it until after the justice department has done it? >> again, the justice makes that decision. we play our role in that. we have a constant dialogue with them. not just essentially many, a broad range of violations that take place. we always have the justice department involved. >> he tried to dodge, but elizabeth warren wunts buying it. >> if you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to go to jail. if it happens repeatedly, you may go to jail for the rest of your life. but, evidently, if you laundered nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night. every single individual associated with this. and i just think that's fundamentally wrong. >> it is fundamentally wrong. senator warren from massachusetts is in the senate and she's already making noise. how great. thanks for watching.
i'm al sharpton. have a good weekend. "hardball" starts right now. >> a left turn on the drones. let's play "hardball." >> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. like a lot of you watching, i got interested in politics back in school. something about it just grabbed the role of the individual in this country and how we get treated by our government and what role the united states of america should play in the world. if i ever forget vietnam, please remind me, and do it loud. so when john mccain blasted rand paul the other day for, quote, stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms, i thought back to when i myself was in one of those college dorms up at holy cross in worcester where people are now under 10 inches of snow.
i assume they're arguing about drones up there, about the rights of the united states government to use those drones against americans, even americans who may have turned against their country. debates are great. debates in college dorms are where it all begins. what burns in this country. keeps us hot with ideas. keeps us giving a damn about guarding what is our legacy, freedom, freedom from government interference, freedom from decisions that suggest that government is more important than citizens. so i may not have the attitude of a rand paul, but i worship his right to have it. i would never put down that attitude simply because i think there's a bit of right wing paranoia attached to that guy. why? because in some dorm room somewhere, perhaps where i went to college, where you went to college, there are young people arguing about it, and i say thank god for that. cynthia tucker is a pulitzer prize-winning syndicated columnist, and ron reagan is a radio talk show host and msnbc political analyst. ron, i always trust what you think in your heart and your brain put together. put them all together, this thing, this fight on the right between the establishment hawks,
that's what the establishment is in the republican party, hawkish like mccain and lindsey graham, are putting down rand paul because he isn't one of them and he dared to question the use of u.s. military power in this case against individual citizens. where are you, a man of the left, on this one? >> well, on the subject of drones, and this is a very interesting thing to watch this divide among the republicans whereas you say the establishment, which is reflexively pro-military on the republican side, is running up against the new tea party republicans who aren't so reflexively pro-military who are ideologically libertarian and see threats to civil liberties where some progressive lefties might also. i, too, am troubled like rand paul -- like a stopped clock occasionally he's right, and on the use of drones -- >> i used that phrase yesterday. did you watch last night because i said a broken clock is right twice a day. >> i didn't see that. great minds think alike. >> it's yours, too.
let me go to cynthia -- if you want to finish that thought, go ahead. rand paul can be pretty wacky. he's talking about the united states government hitting somebody in a cafe. i imagine a cafe on some street corner sipping their -- not grand marnier, sipping their coffee, and all of a sudden a drone comes in because they said the wrong thing politically. i don't think that's going to happen in this country of ours. do you think it's something we should be debating whether it should happen? >> well -- >> are you asking me? >> go ahead, cynthia. >> rand paul used a very extreme example to call attention to this issue of targeted killings, and i think the question we should be asking is not whether a drone is going to descend, bring hell fire on some american sitting having coffee just because of something they said, but rather what is it that brings an american citizen, or for that matter a foreign national, onto this list?
how do you get on the president's targeted killings list? who makes those decisions? what's the rationale? unfortunately, this whole policy is so shrouded in secrecy, we don't know the answers to that, and that's what we ought to be talking about. and i, too, am glad -- i don't trust rand paul, but i'm glad he's brought attention to that subject. >> i agree. i think we all agree. let's look at the three options. there's hitting non-americans. we have a value for that. hitting americans, and then among the americans we have a value for whether we hit them at home here or hit them abroad. that's the way to decline this whole thing. in his filibuster rand paul envisioned the worst fears of the black helicopter crowd. take a look. >> if you're sitting in a cafe and somebody thinks you e-mailed your cousin in the middle east and they think you're conspiring with them, you get -- you should be charged. you should be, you know, imprisoned if they can make the
charges stick, but they shouldn't just drop a hellfire missile on your cafe experience. >> well, senator john mccain took to the senate floor late yesterday to mock rand paul and his young libertarian fans. i guess he assumes he has them. let's listen. >> if mr. paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. he needs to know what he's talking about. >> well, "the new york times" also caught this photo -- it's kind of funny -- of those two senators awkwardly sharing what was a large elevator but too small for them. look at them trying to get away from each other. in his letter to senator paul, eric holder wrote, quote, it's come to my attention that you have asked an additional question. does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil? and the answer to that question is no. are you concerned we're using drones again non-americans, against americans overseas, or
americans at home. dichotomize that. where are you concerned? >> i'm concerned there's no real transparency and no real rules around this. when are we allowed to kill american citizens overseas? are we allowed to use drones in any way, shape, or form domestically? >> al awlaki, a u.s. citizen overseas working with the enemy. where are you on that? >> that is a tough one. that is a real tough one. there's evidence that guy was actively involved in planning attacks against the united states. if that's the case, what's the difference between sending in a s.e.a.l. team and sending in a drone? but if you apply that domestically, what's the difference between sending in a s.w.a.t. team and sending in a drone instead if i'm a police commander? i don't want to send guys through the door -- >> no, i agree it's about lethal. i want to focus -- back to you, cynthia.
suppose some kid grows up in california, he thinks we're too pro-israeli. he decides to join the other side, if you will. join al qaeda. so he ends up over there in some country like yemen, and he's sitting around in a cafe basically hanging around trying to make contact with the enemy. is he a ripe target by our standards of justice in this country to be knocked off by our military, by drone or any other means? is it wrong to consort with the enemy? >> that's the question. you know, petraeus had proposed when he was still running the war in afghanistan that the obama administration adopt a policy whereby people would be targeted for drones because based on some suspicious activities that looked like they might be terrorists. even if we weren't sure who those people were. that worries me. it bothers me not just we might be killing american citizens. it worries me that we might be killing anybody. if we don't have absolute certainty that these people represent a legitimate threat to
the united states. and it certainly ought to be more than something they said. you know, after we killed al awlaki, a drone also hit his son. well, we're now told that that was an accident. well, how did he end up -- >> was it an accident or -- does anybody admit he was a target? cynthia? >> nobody knows. nobody is saying. and that's the problem again. it is shrouded in secrecy. united states citizens don't know what is being done in our names, and we should. >> it gets really tricky, and this isn't anything i would worry about our government doing, but a lot of americans are quite willing on the left and the right, mostly the left lately, to basically take on their government in a very dramatic almost revolutionary way. look at jane fonda for example. she went over and consorted with the north vietnamese. we were at war with them. of course -- what happens when we have enemy most people on the right would say were enemies but
joe kennedy wouldn't say is an enemy? hugo chavez, is he our enemy because he's a lefty? what does it take to become an enemy of the united states? >> we need to know that, and back to cynthia's point which is such a central point, what are the rules around here? where is the transparency here? we're owed this as american citizens. our tax dollars are paying for these drones and these hellfire missiles and things. you know, we're owed an explanation about this, and what happens when other countries get this technology? what's good for us is good for them. would we feel good about north korea having a bunch of drones they could send -- >> well, we can't stop them. nothing we do will stop them from doing what they wish to do. let me get to something philosophical. both of you can handle this. you first, ron. you raised it. what is the connection between the serious left and the serious right? i mean by that people who are concerned about the basics of individual liberty? >> that is the connection, that people are concerned about civil liberties whether they're our
american civil liberties or civil liberties of people living in other countries. we don't make that distinction. all people are created equal as far as we're concerned. how would we feel if some third country or some other country decided to rain down a few missiles on our country or take out a few people that they thought were american terrorists? we'd be up in arms justifiably so. >> same question -- i'm sorry to interrupt. how do you feel the difference as a progressive columnist, the difference between the hard -- i don't mean hard left in terms of supporting revolution or anything, but i'm talking about hard left in terms of really being suspicious of any government power in the way that some on the posse comitatus right are pretty much i think paranoid myself, but how does it meet? how do those two ends meet?
>> there is absolutely some legitimate common ground between those who are serious on the libertarian right and those on the left who fear that the government has encroached too far on our civil liberties. last year in a column i praised ron paul, rand paul's father, because he spoke out against the killing of al awlaki. very few republicans were willing to do that. i think ron paul is very serious and has long been serious about his concerns about civil liberties and the american government going too far. and so progressives can certainly make common cause with libertarians who are serious on issues of civil liberties. >> i also think and i will offer this opinion. i like to know who the president is. and i know why we have to live by law because i'm not sure what i would think about any of this conversation with dick cheney aboard calling the shots because i don't think he has the same lines any of the three of us have about where you stop with government power. i think he's pretty unlimited in that department about the rights -- >> i agree completely. >> thank you. >> that's another reason why we need rules.
>> thank you. >> you can't set a precedent like this. the dick cheneys of the world will get back into power eventually, and we don't want to set a precedent where they can do whatever they want. >> thank you for ending it friday night with a worst case scenario. thank you very much, cynthia tucker, and thank you ron, reagan. coming up, when is president obama going to get some credit, and this is like rodney dangerfield. when is he going to get some credit for this amazing economy that's coming back? it definitely is coming back, maybe not like gangbusters. that unemployment rate really dropped again and a quarter million new jobs out there. and the stock market for the rich is going through the roof. when is this guy going to get some respect? republicans, when are they going to set some standards. when he gets to this number, we'll love him. will they ever admit he's doing a good job? someone who admits he was wrong. bill clinton wrote an op-ed in "the washington post," i couldn't believe it when i saw it, saying the defense of marriage act, which he signed into law, should be overturned. he says not only did the law provide an excuse for
discrimination, the law itself was discriminatory. i'm fascinating with the jockeying taking place in both parties for 2016. rand paul is running, jeb bush is running, and hillary clinton, we'll be waiting for her. when does she decide? we'll ask that and get to all this. what happens when you're too far right for cpac? you charge them with being under the threat of sharia law. only in red america. this is "hardball," the place for politics. clear, huh? i'm not juice or fancy water. i've got nine grams of protein. that's three times more than me! [ female announcer ] ensure clear. nine grams protein. zero fat. in blueberry/pomegranate and peach. nine grams protein. zero fat. the people of bp made a commitment to the gulf., and every day since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we've shared what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. bp's also committed to america. we support nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs
and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. [ man ] on in 5! [ female announcer ] it works as hard as you do... to outlast your day. [ man ] action! wow! [ female announcer ] secret outlast clear gel is better than the next leading invisible solid on white marks. secret outlast clear gel. here is a little sugar plum that took a week to leak. president obama and the first lady hosted a secret supper last friday, a week ago, at the white house with former president bill clinton and hillary clinton. just the four of them according to politico. the three-hour long dinner was informal. a celebration of hillary's retirement, but big bill offered some second-term advice to president obama sharing his own experience dealing with hostile republicans in congress. we'll be right back.
a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say? ♪ if you don't have something important to say? ♪ vo:wiplus wireless speaker,rhead bold is the proud sponsor of singing in the shower.
welcome back to "hardball." this may come as a shock to people living in the conservative media bubble, but despite months of hyperbolic warnings, the election and re-election of barack obama did not, in fact, crash the u.s. economy. well, today we found out that the unemployment rate fell to 7.7% for february, the lowest it's been in more than four years as businesses added, and this is really impressive, 236,000 new jobs. well, how did republicans respond to that? with as little enthusiasm as possible. here is the speaker of the house, john boehner. any job creation is positive news, but the fact is unemployment in america is still way below the levels the white house projected. despite republican grumbling, here is what the obama economy actually looks like. blue, there it is on the right, represents the months president obama has been in office since january of '09. since march of 2010, the private sector has added jobs every month. the biggest loss of jobs in red on the left actually happened when george w. bush was
president. doesn't this president, barack obama, deserve some credit for improving the economy from what he inherited? joy reid is managing editor of thegrio.com, and michael crowley -- what a great name to have these days with "downton abbey," mary crowley -- deputy washington bureau chief for "time" magazine. joy, let me start with you. it seems to me that when i look at the stock market breaking all records, when i look at 236,000 new jobs and i keep thinking when are the republicans going to do what rodney dangerfield asked for all those years, show a little respect, and what does this all mean? don't they secretly say, damn it, things are getting better? what are they saying when they read this stuff? >> i agree with you. they've got to say that stuff. before the election happened, the incentive for republicans was to constantly downplay the economy, to say the economy was terrible because their presidential candidate, mitt romney, was running on only one thing, the economy is awful, i'm
the only one who can fix it. once the election was a fait accompli, you would think the incentive would change because the next person up for re-election if you're a republican member of congress is you. it's not president obama. he's done having elections. you're the next one up, so you would think talking up improvement in the economy and your participation would be a good idea, but they're still not doing it. i think part of it is the incentive structure, the republican party is now so weighted on the side of constantly being against barack obama, whatever he's for, you're against. whatever is good for him is bad for you, bad for the country. if that incentive structure hasn't changed enough for the republicans to get the memo that maybe it would be good politics for them to start saying the economy is getting better. the other reason is they agreed to raise taxes in january. that was a painful thing to do and they'd -- >> for the top 1%. >> barely. exactly. just a minor, and we also raised taxes on everybody with that payroll tax -- >> nobody argues about that, unfortunately. we should have a whole show on that baby. >> they don't want to admit in a slightly higher tax environment jobs are being created. >> let me go to you, michael. it seems a couple shots have been taken at the president, and they have never come to reality. inflation. the way i calculate it, it was like 6%, 2% annual, about
one-sixth of 1% on a monthly basis. there's no inflation yet this year. high interest rates. they're so low you can borrow money now. austerity. where is that working in the world? not only are they wrong on their attacks, they're wrong on their prescriptions. i think estonia is doing all right with austerity and maybe a couple other countries, but that's not generally the rule that that's working. >> europe provides -- all due respect to estonia and the counter example i have heard about europe provides a strong counter example. i know we're talking about the president here, but remember some of the things said by ben bernanke as he was engineering the monetary policy during this recovery. remember rick perry saying he was rigging it for obama's election.
he better not come down to texas. some of the things sarah palin said, completely wrong. but, chris, there is -- as joy said, there is just a kind of partisan dynamic baked in here. i think back with some amusement to the clinton years when clinton passed his economic program in 1993 that included a substantial tax hike. republicans predicted the economy would just completely collapse. it was going to be economic armageddon. then, as you recall, we had this tremendous economic boom, and they immediately said that was because of the dotcom explosion and productivity changes, and so, you know, you kind of can't win in this partisan situation, and i think republicans are just too committed to the idea that the economy really can't be good under barack obama's stewardship. it would be too hard to explain. >> you're younger than me. the old line -- joy, you may not have lived like this. if you want to live like a republican, vote like a democrat. not true that people have better times, better life, existences under the republicans. marsha blackburn was asked by luke russert about the unemployment numbers earlier today. listen to her nonanswer answer. >> the economy grew by 236,000 jobs last quarter, unemployment went down 7.7%. president obama deserves some credit for that one?
>> well, i think that there is credit to go around, and also, luke, i have to tell you, talking to so many business owners here in tennessee, they were pleased to see that we stuck to the point of letting the sequester take place and beginning to cut across the board, make some cuts in this discretionary spending. >> well, that doesn't have anything to do with luke's very pressing question there, joy. i mean, it was a good question. it was about today's news. what do you make of the day's news. her answer was i don't have anything to say about the news. but i guess the question is, you were getting to it, does this affect the things look a little brighter than they did several months ago. although i have to tell you we've been rounding at 8% for 14 months. for all this talk about jubilation t. cornpone and everything else that's going on, whatever song that's from, that haven't gotten marginally greater. we're still around 8% in the history books, and a question i have to ask, bernanke says he's going to stop pumping money into the economy when we get to 6%.
when are the republicans going to say good show? >> right. >> if any republicans watching now in the political business, please let us know what number will make you quiet down, at least say this guy may have it? >> you're absolutely right. the irony of marsha blackburn's comments is that the sequester is happening at the moment, the jobs report is backward looking. so the sequester has zero, nothing to do with the jobs numbers that were just reported. what she's saying didn't even make sense. the problem is for republicans is that the history of the american economy is that when you withdraw government spending from the economy, as by the way fdr did after he did a couple years of the new deal, he tried austerity and we had a double dip recession. hoover tried it. the idea of withdrawing
government spending when the private sector is withdrawing spending means you lower gdp. nobody has explained how cutting government spending creates jobs. they don't have a relationship. you've got to have somebody spending into the economy, and if it's not the private sector, hello, it's got to be the government. that's why stimulus works. >> here is where it always surprises me, people are surprised by things. today on "morning joe" everybody found out mark harmon makes more money than brad pitt because people like mark harmon and he's on television all the time. we have been creating public sector jobs month by month ever since 2010 in this country under this democratic administration meanwhile reducing the number of public sector jobs. if you ask the average republican sitting at a bar stool tonight on some route 40 somewhere, you stop in and say what are we doing creating a lot of public sector jobs a bunch of drones working in washington are are we creating jobs in the good old private sector. the opposite of what that guy is going to say. why are we so screwed up on the simple facts of where the jobs are coming from? >> because there's a lot of misinformation going out there, and the structure of the economy i guess to be a little more
charitable can be complicated and people don't break it down, but there's a lot of misinformation. the sequester is providing a drag. so congresswoman blackburn may be right that business owners are making investments and making decisions that are growing the economy based on the sequester, but everything i have seen is economists saying it's putting a drag on the economy. this is the wrong time -- >> you know what? we may disagree. i think basically this is the grand solution. i think the democrats do not want to cut medicare, and i understand why not, and republicans don't want to raise taxes, and politically i understand why not. they'll take the hit. i think the second best solution is better for all of them. that's why i think we're not going to get a deal this summer. the president just wants to say we're going to get a deal in july so he doesn't have to talk about it in august. i know. am i the cynic? yes, tonight. joy reid, thank you. and michael crowley, with that great last night. mary crowley, do i like her. up next, what do you do if you're too far to the right for the cpac crowd? you accuse them of being in cahoots with the muslim brotherhood.
how? by building custom security solutions that integrate video, access control, fire and intrusion protection. all backed up with world-class monitoring centers, thousands of qualified technicians, and a personal passion to help protect your business. when your business is optimized like that, there's no stopping you. we are tyco integrated security. and we are sharper. ah beautiful. work the camera... work it...work it! those hands. oooh la la! magnifique! what's your secret? what? huh? dawn? how can this be? [ female announcer ] dawn hand renewal with olay beauty helps lock in skin's natural moisture to improve the look and feel of hands in 5 uses. [ sponge ] gotta hand it to your beautiful hands, huh? [ female announcer ] love it, or get double your money back.
dawn does more. [ sponge ] so it's not a chore. but we can still help you see your big picture. with the fidelity guided portfolio summary, you choose which accounts to track and use fidelity's analytics to spot trends, gain insights, and figure out what you want to do next. all in one place. i'm meredith stoddard and i helped create the fidelity guided portfolio summary. it's one more innovative reason serious investors are choosing fidelity. now get 200 free trades when you open an account. somthe color of ourve shimmering waters. the beauty of our swaying palms. and the magic of a people... ...and a place like nowhere else on earth. behold...the islands of the bahamas.
back to "hardball." now to the "sideshow." first off, here is a question. what if contenders for the papacy had to launch full on campaigns to get chosen to lead the catholic church? jon stewart has a taste of what you might call the first ever papal political ad. >> leonardo sandri says he's infallible, but just last week he picked bradley cooper in his oscar pool. bradley cooper. leonardo sandri, wrong about bradley cooper, wrong for the vatican. >> well, just one reason to stick with the conclave as it is. next, politics and straws.
no, this has nothing to do with a straw poll. republican state senators in washington state are dissatisfied with a recent state supreme court decision that requires more state money to be put toward education. well, their solution to save money, reduce the size of the supreme court from nine judges to five. so how is it decided who gets knocked off the bench? from the bill, quote, on june 30th, 2013, all existing judges of the state supreme court shall meet in public to cast lots by drawing straws. effective july 1st, 2013, the positions of the four judges casting losing lots by drawing the shortest straws shall be terminated. that's right, drawing short straw and you're out. it's fairly transparent why they're looking to the supreme court to cut costs. in addition to that education decision the court made, the court also recently ruled against a republican plan that would have made it more difficult to impose tax increases. finally, this week in conspiracy. anti-islam activist pamela geller is on the list of people not invited to cpac this year. is it because having someone at the event sounding the alarm about sharia law might lead to undesirable headlines for
republicans? not if you ask pamela geller herself. she says it's too late for cpac. they've already fallen victim to sharia. here she is with conservative radio host janet mefferd. i've always held events there, even though i wasn't warmly welcomed because of the influence of what can only be described as muslim brotherhood facilitators or operatives. i think people at this point people need to know just how deeply we have been infiltrated. i mean, look, what are they doing at cpac? essentially, janet, they are enforcing the sharia. under the sharia, the blasphemy
laws, you can't say, you can't offend, you can't criticize, and you cannot insult islam. and so that's effectively what they're doing. they're enforcing sharia. gellar targets anti-tax crusader grover norquist as one of the muslim brotherhood facilitators standing in her way of putting on a show at cpac. state lawmakers in florida are keeping tabs on sharia infiltration, too. two republicans in that state have reintroduced legislation that would ban courts from considering foreign law when making legal decisions. well, the bill didn't pass last time it was proposed, but they're giving it another try. up next, bill clinton says it's time to overturn doma, the defense of marriage act. this is a big deal. an act he signed back in '96. and that's coming up next. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. place for politics. blank blaj there's this island -- and it's got super-cute kangaroos.
chuck h aragel plans to meet wi afghan president. doze dozens officials from around the world attended hugo chavez's funeral and osama bin laden's son-in-law appeared in court today. he was arrested last week in jordan. >> president clinton has signed a bill that bans same-sex marriages. the white house says the president has long opposed government recognition of homosexual marriages but hopes the bill won't be used as an excuse to discriminate. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was a 1996 "today" show report by bob kerr on bill clinton signing after midnight the defense of marriage act, also known as doma.
by the way, he signed it just weeks before his re-election. there are no pictures of that bill signing because, as bob kerr reported there, it happened after midnight and far away from tv cameras. today in washington in our own "washington post," clinton disavowed the bill he signed back there into law writing, quote, in a powerful new op-ed piece, on march 27th doma will come before the supreme court and the justices must decide whether it's consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality, and justice above all and is therefore constitutional. as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is contrary to those principles and incompatible with our constitution. this follows an amicus brief that signals political shift. dee dee myers knows the president very well. she was first woman press secretary in history, and this
weekend on bbc america you can watch the documentary, "what if women ruled the world," which is a very wonderful sound to some people. maggie haberman writes for politico. thank you for joining us as well. dee dee, your guy, bill, he's just my bill, do you think it has anything to do with the fact that we're in a tremendously changed culture and environment these years later? >> there's no question about it. the environment was very different, and as president clinton points out in his piece today, there was great fear among advocates, including him, that there would be a federal constitution amendment banning same-sex marriage that would be hard to overturn. doma was looked at as a stopgap measure, a way to stop a national constitutional amendment movement. the proof that that was really
urgent was since doma was signed, 31 states have passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. so there was a lot of energy around it. it's amazing how much things have changed -- >> actually three or four states have actually voted on it. it's the state legislatures and the courts that have been the most active. public opinion of same-sex marriage has shifted so dramatically since '96. back when bill clinton signed the defense of marriage act, which basically says we will not as a federal government recognize gay marriage, it was 27% support. i'm surprised it was that high. today it's 54% -- 53%. it's really changed. let me get maggie in here. a doubling of support for it, which i thought was minuscule back then, now it's a strong majority and going. among catholics it's a majority opinion.
what do you make of bill clinton? will this affect the court ruling? do you think this amicus and the fact he's such a powerful force affect the court decision? >> i think he is less likely to have an impact on the court's decision than i think this is about 2016 and the future -- >> he isn't running. >> he's not running, but someone else might be who he's related to. bill clinton has come out in favor of gay marriage. his daughter, and this is really important to note, chelsea clinton was very prominent in favor of gay marriage in new york when andrew cuomo was trying to push through legislation legalizing gay marriage in 2011. hillary clinton has not taken a position yet. it's very hard to see her doing anything other than eventually coming out in support of gay marriage, which is where her family is and her party is, as you note. >> what's stopping her do you think? she could put out an op-ed piece and have it polished up for tomorrow's paper right now. >> i think at the end of the day i think it is to be something less of an event than be a huge event. she is technically late to this. to be fair to her, she has been seen as very proactive on lesbian and gay issues in the state department. she had a pretty good record there. the gay community is generally very supportive of hillary clinton, but a lot of gay activists have said they hope she would come out -- >> you know -- >> go ahead. >> the reason she hasn't is because she felt it was sort of incompatible as the nation's chief diplomat. she didn't want to get mixed up in domestic politics when -- >> i think she would argue if she were sitting here it's a human rights issue. >> that's why she's advocating for gay diplomats, allow -- >> let's talk politics for a second. i don't know how the court is going to rule. i hope it rules positively. i have changed my position like lost of us. i have evolved, new word. maggie, you have covered this. what i think has crumbled is the
opposition. it's not so much people are saying it's fair, people are gay, they're born gay. it may not be nature versus nurture is a nonrelevant conversation. people are what they are, they should be allowed to pursue happiness, and let's be fair and equal about it. but i think what's crumbled is the opposition. nobody can think of a reason to oppose it. it came up in prop 8. they couldn't find anybody to come in and say there's a public interest in opposing it. >> the most significant development you saw beyond the presidential race in 2012, but
there were four states that had gay marriage related referenda, but overall were sort of aimed toward legalizing gay marriage. they were all successful for the pro-gay marriage side. that was a huge development because there had not been a ballot win before that, and so you did see among the republican base some opposition still lingers. remember, you had the chik-fil-a protests in new york. there was at least one primary that was lost by a state senator who had voted in favor of gay marriage at the state level in new york. generally speaking, you're right. in a general election framework, more nationally beyond the party base and in the middle there has been movement on this. i think it's worth noting when you're talking about the cross tabs of where opinion has changed, african-americans now in most polling show a majority support for gay marriage. that's a big change.
>> that's the reason john kerry is secretary of state rather than president. because in 2004 the issue was in ohio, people got together there, our friend, what's his name, karl rove, got together with don king and got a lot of african-american preachers up in cuyahoga county in cleveland to get their people out, the flock out, the congregations out to vote against this gay marriage thing, and that turned that state. >> constitutional amendments were used as battering rams against progressives -- >> we thought north carolina would be hurt by that. >> first of all, 85 senators voted for doma including joe biden, joe lieberman, chris dodd, tom daschle, barbara mikulski -- >> keep going, i love this. mikulski. all the liberals. >> john kerry did not vote for it. ted kennedy did not vote for it, but the majority -- 85 senators voted for it, and now we're in a position -- >> what did doma do? >> doma basically designated marriage as between a man and a woman and basically said that the -- >> all federal payments -- >> -- states wouldn't have to recognize -- >> that most important -- that's true, didn't have to recognize -- >> outside of that definition. >> virginia would have to recognize maryland, but it also said for federal purposes, social security, medicare, there's no such thing as gay marriage. >> i think president clinton says --
>> i love this conversation. maggie, thanks so much for coming on. i love this conversation especially from a political point of view. dee dee myers thank you. a model, by the way. she was at my bus stop recently on the bus stop. very demure. up next, the jockeying for 2016 -- it's all true. the jockeying for 2016 has already begun on both sides, and that's coming up. pure politics coming back here in the place for politics in a couple minutes. today is international mush nce, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we've shared what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. bp's also committed to america. we support nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. hi victor! mom? i know you got to go in a minute but this is a real quick meal,
that's perfect for two! campbell's chunky beef with country vegetables, poured over rice! [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right. yeah? then how'd i get this... [ voice of dennis ] ...safe driving bonus check? every six months without an accident, allstate sends a check. silence. are you in good hands?
internationalwomen's day, and as dee dee myers said -- she's got a great documentary coming out airing on the bbc america saturday at 7:30 eastern in the united states. it's "what if women ruled the world." we have some new poll -- we have some -- no, we don't. what if women ruled the world? ♪ [ male announcer ] how could switchgrass in argentina, change engineering in dubai, aluminum production in south africa, and the aerospace industry in the u.s.? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing.
otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪ there's nothing like our grilled lobster and lobster tacos. the bar harbor bake is really worth trying. [ male announcer ] get more during red lobster's lobsterfest. with the year's largest selection of mouth-watering lobster entrees. like our delicious lobster lover's dream, featuring two kinds of lobster tails. or our savory, new grilled maine lobster and lobster tacos. my favorite entree is the lobster lover's dream. what's yours? come celebrate lobsterfest and sea food differently. [ male announcer ] visit redlobster.com now for an exclusive $10 coupon on two lobsterfest entrees.
humans. even when we cross our t's and dot our i's, we still run into problems. namely, other humans. which is why at liberty mutual insurance, auto policies come with new car replacement and accident forgiveness if you qualify. see what else comes standard at libertymutual.com. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? we're back. even though the next presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, the jockeying for 2016 has clearly begun. former florida governor jeb bush and senator rand paul have positioned themselves this week to be major players in that race. bush made headlines talking
about immigration and the future of the republican party while tea party darling senator rand paul staged a high profile 13-hour filibuster and told politico he's thinking of running for president. although hillary clinton has not said whether she will run, the pollsters are taking stock on her. in a quinnipiac poll out this week, clinton beats chris christie 45%, 37%. she has a double digit lead over paul ryan. and she's strongest against marco rubio leading the florida senator by 16 points. it's clear that hillary clinton is a favorite right now in any poll, but other democrats may force her to decide sooner than she'd like whether to get in the race. our "hardball" strategists are here. this is going to be fun. doug hathaway is a democratic expert, and john brabender is on the other side. let's be equal time here and try to be analytical. not cheerleaders for this purpose. looking at these numbers now, hillary 45%/37% over christie. i would say christie is at the top of his game, but he's got to get re-elected. hillary clinton is sort of a known quantity. where are they at? >> i agree with that. christie, the national media
seems to like christie. his shtick plays well on the east coast. they go with that? >> christie, the national media seems to like christie. i have no idea how that plays in the republican party, much less across the country in the south where he's got to prove himself. he's got a whole other term to make mistakes and blunders that come back to bite him. >> let me go to john. looking across the aisle to the democratic side, how long do you think hillary clinton has to make up her mind. not to make up her mind but make it official that she's running. >> i think the first thing is freeze the field. she has to be out there very quietly telling big donors, telling the top operatives she's at least looking at this and to keep their powder dry. i don't think she'll do anything officially until probably after the 2014 elections, quite frankly. >> when will she make it clear in the papers to the top political journalists and all that she's in this race? when does she sort of have to do it? does she ever have to do it? >> yeah, no, no, no. here's her problem. her numbers are the highest they
are ever going to be right now. so she has to maintain this by being out there, being a thoughtful person who is weighing in on critical issues and make it look like others are trying to get her to run, not that she wants the job. and that's a very difficult thing to do. >> especially when it's not true. i mean, you either want to run for president, guys, or you don't want to run. >> that's a classic front-runner -- the punitive front-runner. never wants to step out and get the target on their back. she doesn't need to prove herself. people know what she's made of. >> if it's at the end of this year and we're going -- and i want john to answer this. when it's the end of this year, going to '14, next year will people say, stop the coinists or what will they say? >> the clamoring is loud already. >> what does biden do if he thinks she's not running, he's definitely running. if she thinks she's running he may not run. >> they are close friends. >> does she owe him anything or not? >> i don't know. >> just tough luck, buddy?
go out there, run like mad and i'll decide to run you out of there. >> it's an interesting situation because they are both friends. they both really have the best platforms for this at the moment. >> you are saying she doesn't owe him anything? >> i don't think anybody who deems themselves to be the best person for the job of president feels they owe anybody anything. >> john, do you think she can be beat on the democratic side? times change. i don't think she could be beaten now. what do you think in three years? >> first of all, look. everybody thought hillary was going to be the nominee in 2008. they ran a terrible campaign. didn't concentrate on the caucuses which obama did and killed them. frankly, there is a possibility that there will be hillary fatigue by that point. i think you'll see some energetic hispanic candidates and other women candidates. i don't think she's the automatic nominee. >> let me tell you why i think it's over nrdand i think she'll run. it's gender. we don't have women presidents. we now have an african-american president, thank god. i think women my age or younger
are going to vote for her because of that. i think it's going to be as powerful for women, my age and younger, as it has been for african-americans. it's not a decision really because they've said, dammit, it's time. i heard it last time around when i was with obama. it was all over the place. i don't think it's going away. you do? you think that could go away? that gender pride, it's our turn? >> i think it's important but women, i don't think particularly -- i think the hard part is keeping with the brand which hillary has today to keep that for four years is remarkably hard. >> i agree with that. it's hard when you are high in the polls. there's nowhere to go but down. i think it's really smart to keep your powder dry. the appeal of having a woman on the ticket -- you start with a base of more than half the voter. that's a hell of a base to
start. >> you look at the young people. >> check with any woman 50 to 70 years old that think it's time for a woman to be president. let's talk about your side of the aisle now. it seems jeb wants to be considered right now. he's throughout. rand paul has just got this ideology that's so strong he has to run to represent. he's not a republican. he's a and rand objectivist. who else could take those guys on. >> to be clear, this isn't my side of the aisle, i'm a democrat. >> we can switch. >> john, i'm going to you. i just had a brain seize tlur. let's go to you, john. this question. christie would win right now maybe. rubio would be in the race. jeb, i think, would be -- i don't know about jeb. i don't know whether it's bush fatigue. >> first of all, you can write this down as a projection. i don't think christie runs. if you look at everything he's doing, he's not worrying about republican primary voters. he's working about democrat voters in new jersey.
where it's great for his re-election, it will hurt him four years from now. rand paul is trying to plant his flag in the ground as the libertarian to start with what his father had and expand from there. >> he's got to give up the senate seat. that's a problem. >> so does marco rubio. >> we know that quite frankly. i love the way you do that. john brabender and doug hattaway. we'll be right back. l? by the barrelful? the carful? how about...by the bowlful? campbell's soups give you nutrition, energy, and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. [ babies crying ] surprise -- your house was built on an ancient burial ground. [ ghosts moaning ] surprise -- your car needs a new transmission. [ coyote howls ] how about no more surprises? now you can get all the online trading tools you need without any surprise fees.
♪ it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. before taking abilify, an antidepressant alone helped me get out from under. but sometimes...depression still dragged me down. i'd been feeling stuck for a long time. so my doctor added abilify to my antidepressant. she said some people had symptom improvement as early as 1 to 2 weeks. now i feel more in control of my depression. [ female announcer ] abilify is not for everyone. call your doctor if your depression worsens or you have unusual changes in behavior, or thoughts of suicide. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. elderly dementia patients taking abilify have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor if you have high fever, stiff muscles, and confusion to address a possible life-threatening condition. or if you have uncontrollable muscle movements, as these could become permanent. high blood sugar has been reported with abilify and medicines like it and in extreme cases can lead to coma or death. other risks include increased cholesterol, weight gain,
decreases in white blood cells, which can be serious, dizziness on standing, seizures, trouble swallowing, and impaired judgment or motor skills. depression was always hanging over me. then my doctor added abilify to my antidepressant. now i feel better. [ female announcer ] if you're still struggling with depression talk to your doctor to see if the option of adding abilify is right for you. and be sure to ask about the free trial offer.